විකිපීඩියා:වාරණ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය

වාරණය කිරීම යනු administrators (පරිපාලකවරු) විසින් ඇතැම් පරිශීලකයන් විකිපීඩියාව සංස්කරණය කිරීම තාක්ෂණික ලෙස අවහිර කිරීමයි. වාරණයන් user accounts (පරිශීලක ගිණුම්) වලට IP addresses (IP ලිපින) වලට සහ IP ලිපින ශ්‍රේණියකට නියමිත හෝ නියමිත නොවන කාලයකට බලපැවැත්වෙනු ඇත. වාරණය කරන ලද පරිශීලකයෙකුට තව දුරටත් විකිපීඩියාවට ප්‍රවේශ වීමට හැකි වුවද ඔවුන්ගේ user talk page (පරිශීලක සාකච්ඡා පිටුව) (බොහෝ විට) හැරුණු විට අනෙකුත් කිසිදු පිටුවක් සංස්කරණයට හැකියාවක් නැත/ඉඩ නොලැබේ.

වාරණය කිරීම, විකිපීඩියාවට සිදුවන හානි සහ කඩාකප්පල් කිරීම් වළක්වා ගැනීමට භාවිත වේ; එය දඬුවමක් (බලන්න Purpose and goals), ලෙස නොසැලකිය යුතුයි, නමුත් සමහවිට මෙය සෑහීමකට ප්‍රමාණවත් නොවිය හැක. ඕනෑම පරිශීලකයෙකුට කඩාකප්පල්කාරී ගිණුම් හෝ IP ලිපින පරිපාලකවරුන්ට පැමිණිලි කිරීම සහ ඒවා වාරණය කරන්නැයි ඉල්ලා සිටීමට පුළුවන. (බලන්න Requesting blocks)

ඔබව වැරදි ලෙස/අවිධිමත් ලෙස වාරණය කර ඇතැයි සිතන්නේ නම්, තීරණය නැවත සලකා බලන්නැයි ඉල්ලා සිටීමට ඔබට පුළුවන. උපදෙස් සඳහා Appealing a block (වාරණය පිලිබඳ අභියාචනා ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම) බලන්න. වාරණය සාධාරණ නොවේයැයි සහ තවදුරටත් දීම අනවශ්‍යය යැයි හැඟෙන විට පරිශීලකයෙකුගේ වාරණය ඉවත් කිරීමට පරිපාලකවරුන්ට හැකියාව ඇත.

අරමුණ

වාරණය කිරීම් මගින් ව්‍යාපෘතියට සිදුවන හානි/අනර්ථ වලින් ආරක්ෂාව සලසන අතර ඇතිවිය හැකි අනාගත ගැටළු සීමා කරයි. ගැටළුව නැවත නැවත පැනනැගීම සිදු වුවහොත් වාරණය සිදු කරන කාල සීමාව වැඩි වනු ඇත. පරිපාලකවරු සිද්ධියට මැදිහත් වීමට පෙර සිද්ධිය හොඳින් වටහා ගත යුතුය. සිද්ධීන් නැවත විමර්ශනය කරන විට, වාරණය නොකළයුතු තත්ත්වයන් යටතේ පවා වාරණය කිරීම්, පරිපාලක බලතල පිට සිදු කර ඇති බැව් පෙනෙන වාරණය කිරීම්, blocking is a serious matter යටතේ පරිපාලකවරුන් සිදු නොකළ යුතුයි.

වාරණ දඬුවම් කිරීමක් නොවිය යුතුය

පහත සඳහන් කරුණු වලට වාරණ භාවිත නොකළ යුතුයි. Blocks should not be used:

1. පරිශීලකයන්ගෙන් පලි ගැනීමට;
2. අනෙක් පරිශීලකයන් අවඥාවට ලක් කිරීමට;
3. පරිශීලකයන්ට දඬුවමක් ලෙස, හෝ,
4. සලකා බැලිය යුතු තරම් නොවන වත්මන් ක්‍රියාකාරිත්වයන්

වාරණ නිවාරක විය යුතුය

වාරණ පහත හේතුන්ට භාවිත කල යුතුයි:

1. ඉතා ආසන්නව සිදුවිය හැකි හෝ දිගින් දිගටම විකිපීඩියාවට සිදු කරන හානි සහ කඩාකප්පල් කිරීම් වැලක්වීමට;
2. දිගින් දිගටම පවත්වා ගෙන යනු ලබන වත්මන් කඩාකප්පල්කාරී හැසිරීම් අවහිර කිරීමට, සහ,
3. ප්‍රජා ප්‍රතිමාන තුලින් වඩා ඵලදායි, යෝග්‍ය සංස්කරණ රටාවක් ඇති වීම දිරිමත් කිරීමට.

පුනර්වෘත්තිය (නැවත කිරීම) පදනම් කරගනිමින් නිවර්තනය සිදුවනවා විය හැක. උදාහරණයක් වශයෙන් යම් කෙනෙක් නුසුදුසු සංස්කරණයක් සිදු කර කෙටි කාලයක් ගත වන විටම එම පුද්ගලයා වාරණය කිරීම යුක්තිසහගත විය හැකිය; නමුත් එම පුද්ගලයා එවැනි ක්‍රියා නැවත සිදු නොකරන ලද්දේ නම් හෝ එම හැසිරීම් රටා විසඳන ලදුව ඇත්තේ නම් මේ මොහොතේදී ඔහු/ඇය වාරණය කිරීම යුක්තිසහගත නොවනු ඇත.

වාරණකිරීමක් ඉල්ලාසිටීම

administrators' noticeboard for incidents (සිද්ධීන් පිලිබඳ පරිපාලකවරුන්ගේ දැන්වීම් පුවරුව)හි හෝ administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard (නාශකවාදයට එරෙහිව පරිපාලකවරුන්ගේ මැදිහත්වීම් දැන්වීම් පුවරුව) වැනි විශේෂිත ස්ථානයක දී කඩාකප්පල්කාරී හැසිරීම්/ක්‍රියා පිළිබඳව පැමිණිලි කිරීම සහ සුදුසු නම් වාරණය කිරීමක් ඉල්ලා සිටීම කල හැක. වාරණයන් සිදු කිරීමට පරිපාලකවරු බැඳී නොසිටින අතර තත්ත්වය පිළිබඳව ඔවුන් විසින් ම සොයා බැලීමට ඔවුන්ට නිදහස ඇත. වාරණය කිරීමක් බලාත්මක කිරීමට පෙර පරිපාලකවරු විසින් අදාළ සිදුවීම් සම්පූර්ණයෙන් අවබෝධ කරගෙන/වටහාගෙන සිටීම අපේක්ෂා කෙරේ. #Explanation of blocks (වාරණයන් පැහැදිලි කිරීම) ද බලන්න.

වාරණයන් සඳහා පොදු තර්කණයන්

පහත දැක්වෙන්නේ වාරණයන් සඳහා වඩාත් පොදු තර්කනයන් වේ.

අනුභූතික රීතියක් (පුරුද්දෙන් ඇති කරගත් ක්‍රමයක්) ලෙස, සැකයක් පවතින විට (සැකයකින් යුතුව), වාරණයන් සිදු නොකරන්න; ඒ වෙනුවට අනෙක් පරිපාලකවරුන්ගෙන් ද උපදෙස් ලබා ගන්න. මත භේදයට තුඩු දිය හැකි වාරණයක් සිදු කිරීමෙන් පසු, ඒ පිළිබඳව සොයා බලන්නන් සඳහා administrators' incidents noticeboard (පරිපාලකවරුන්ගේ සිදුවීම් දැන්වීම් පුවරුව)හි එම වාරණය පිළිබඳව සටහනක් තැබීම හොඳ අදහසකි.

නව පරිශීලකයන් පිළිබඳව කටයුතු කිරීමේදී පරිපාලකවරු විශේෂ අවධානයක් යොමු කල යුතු වෙයි. නවක සංස්කාරකවරුන්ට විකිපීඩියාවේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ සම්මතයන් බොහෝ විට නුහුරු බැවින් ඔවුන්ගේ හැසිරීම් රටා මුලින්ම කඩාකප්පල්කාරී ලෙස දිස්විය හැකිය. මෙම නව පරිශීලකයන්ට අධික බලපෑම් සහිත ප්‍රතිචාර දැක්වීම ඔවුන්ගේ අනාගත සංස්කරණ අධෛර්යමත් කරවන්නක් විය හැක. බලන්න Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers (නවකයන්ව සපා නොකන්න).

ආරක්‍ෂාව

හිමිකම්, දේපළ ආරක්ෂා කිරීමට හෝ Wikimedia Foundation (විකිමීඩියා පදනම), එහි පරිශීලකයන්, හෝ ප්‍රජාවේ රැකවරණය උදෙසා ඇතැම් පරිශීලකයන් වාරණය කිරීමට සිදු වනු ඇත. ආරක්ෂාව උදෙසා වාරණය පහත හේතූන් මත ද අවැසි වනු ඇත:

• නොනැවතී සිදු කරන personal attacks (පෞද්ගලික පහරදීම්);
• පෞද්ගලික, වෘත්තිමය, හෝ legal (නීතිමය) තර්ජන (විකිපීඩියා අඩවියෙන් බැහැරව සිදු කෙරෙන ඒවාද ඇතුළත්ව) (personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site));
• පරිශීලකයන් අනතුරට භාජනය කරන ක්‍රියා (actions that place users in danger);
• ළමා රැකවරණය අනතුරට ලක් කරන ක්‍රියා, Wikipedia:Child protection (ළමා ආරක්ෂණය)ට අනුකූලව (actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection);
• personal information (පෞද්ගලික තොරතුරු) හෙළි කිරීම (තොරතුරු වල නිරවද්‍යභාවය කවරක් වුවද);
• නොකඩව සිදුකරන copyright violations (හිමිකම් කඩ කිරීම්);
• දිගින් දිගටම ආශ්‍රිතයන්/යොමුවන් රහිතව, නොසතුටුදායක පරිදි යොමුවන් සහිතව හෝ වැරදි යොමුවන් සහිතව පල කෙරෙන ලිපි හෝ living persons (ජිවත් වන පුද්ගලයන්) පිලිබඳ විභව්‍යමය defamatory (අපහාසාත්මක) තොරතුරු; සහ
• අමාරුකාර ලෙස පෙනෙන ගිණුම් (ඉක්මන් තීරණයක් ලෙස)

පෞද්ගලික තොරතුරු හෙළිදරවු කිරීම් වලට හෝ පරිශීලකයන් අනතුරෙහි හෙළන ක්‍රියාවන්ට ප්‍රතිචාර වශයෙන් වාරණයක් කිරීමේදී හෝ (arbcom-lwikimedia.org) විද්‍යුත් තැපෑලක් මගින් හෙළිදරවු කිරීම් හෝ උවදුර පිළිබඳව ගැටලුවේ සාධක request permanent deletion (ස්ථිරසාර මකා දැමීම)ට oversight permissions (අනවධාන අවසරයන්) සහිත යම් අයෙකුද සමඟ Arbitration Committee (විනිශ්චය කමිටුව) දැනුවත් කිරීමට සැලකිලිමත් වන්න.

Disruption

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
• breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

Disruption-only

Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:

• accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism.
• public accounts (where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group);
• accounts with inappropriate usernames;
• bots operating without approval or outside their approval;
• accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.

Open or anonymous proxies

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Open proxies

Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight.

Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be reassigned, or the open proxy is likely to be closed. Many Tor proxies, in particular, are "exit nodes" for only a short time; these proxies should generally not be blocked indefinitely without consideration. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses for further details.

There is also a Wikipedia project, the WikiProject on open proxies, which seeks to identify and block open proxy servers.

Enforcing bans

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Banning policy

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent.

Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question. Bans which revoke editing privileges to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not "partial"—may be backed up by a block, which is usually set to apply for the period which the ban itself applies.

Evasion of blocks

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked.

Recording in the block log after username change

Editors may cite Wikipedia:Clean start and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed and asking that their user and talk pages be deleted by an administrator. If such editors have been blocked previously then the administrator who has been requested to make the deletion should contact a Checkuser so that the connection between the accounts can be verified. The Checkuser should then consider adding short blocks to the new account to denote each entry in the user's old account log. Such short blocks should provide protection in case the "clean start" was based on a genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, by not disclosing the previous username, while at the same time eliminating the possibility of avoiding the scrutiny of the community.

The short blocks should be described in the block summary as "previous account block" and the final duration of the block should be noted. Blocks placed in error and lifted early should not be noted at all.

When blocking may not be used

Self-requested blocks

Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused; however, there is a category of admins willing to consider such requests. Alternatively, there is a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used.

Conflicts of interest

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.

Cool-down blocks

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

Recording in the block log

Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.

Very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, unless the original block has not yet expired (in which case the message may be recorded in the unblocking reason).

Explanation of blocks

Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.

Notifying the blocked user

Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact.

When implementing a block, a number of pro forma block reasons are available in a drop-down menu; other or additional reasons can also be added. Users can be notified of blocks and block reasons using a number of convenient template messages—see Category:User block templates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

Other important information

If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or which may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator should consider including this information in the block notice. For example:

• When there is information or evidence that may not be obvious, may not be fully appreciated, or may otherwise be relevant.
• Prior endorsement that if any administrator wishes to unblock, or there is consensus for it, they may without consulting the blocking administrator.
• Suggested conditions for an unblock.

Confidential evidence

If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence which cannot be peer-reviewed.

An exception is made for administrators who hold Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or edits of the blocked user deleted via oversight, as such an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversight or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.

Contact details: individual Checkusers and Oversighters are listed on the relevant pages; they can also be contacted via the functionaries mailing list (eg, if in doubt who to contact).

වාරණය ඉවත්කිරීම

Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, their prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake.

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable:

• when it would constitute wheel warring.
• to unblock one's own account
• to facilitate editing via an open proxy or other kinds of account abuse
• when the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy and there is not ArbCom authorisation or "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" (Arbcom motion)

Each of these may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first time incidents.

There is no limit to the number of unblock requests that a user may issue. However, disruptive use of the unblock template may prompt an administrator to remove the blocked user's ability to edit their talk page. In this case, a block may still be appealed by emailing [email protected] or contacting the ban appeals subcommittee.

Block reviews

As part of an unblock request, uninvolved administrators may discuss a block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information. (see Information provided by blocking administrator.) The blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked; someone else has to decline.

Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious. Cases involving sockpuppets, harassment, or privacy concerns are particularly difficult to judge. At times such issues have led to contentious unblocks. Where an uninformed unblock may be problematic, the blocking administrator may also wish to note as part of the block notice that there are specific circumstances, and that a reviewing administrator should not unblock without discussing the case with the blocking admin (or possibly ArbCom) in order to fully understand the matter.

If a user claims they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity, the {{2nd chance}} template can be used to allow them to demonstrate how they will contribute to the encyclopedia should their unblock request be granted.

Altering block options

Administrators may unblock a user in order to re-block them with different blocking options selected, where that is necessary (for example, if a block on a registered account is causing significant collateral effects to a shared IP address or a blocked user is abusing the Special:Emailuser function). "Unblock to reblock" can also be useful if the block reason needs modifying for any reason, although the original reason will still be visible in the logs.

Temporary circumstances blocks

Some types of blocks are used in response to particular temporary circumstances, and should be undone once the circumstance no longer applies:

• blocks on open or anonymous proxies should be undone once it is confirmed that they have been closed (but be aware some open proxies may be open only at certain times, so careful checking may be needed that it really is apparently no longer in use that way);
• blocks of unapproved or malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots gain approval or are repaired;
• blocks for making legal threats should be undone once the threats are confirmed as permanently withdrawn and no longer outstanding.

Temporary circumstances unblocks

A user may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked in order to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block. Such temporary and conditional unblocks are made on the understanding that the user may not edit any pages (besides their user talk page) except the relevant discussion page(s) explicitly specified by the unblocking admin. The user is effectively banned from editing any other pages, and breaching this ban will be sanctioned appropriately. When the discussion concludes, the block should be reinstated unless there is a consensus to overturn the block.

Checkuser blocks

Administrators should not undo or alter any block that is specifically called a "Checkuser" block without first consulting a Checkuser. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee.

Dealing with off-wiki block requests

Administrators who use Wikipedia-related IRC channels are reminded that, while these channels have legitimate purposes, discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution. Consensus about blocks or other subjects should not be formed off-wiki.

As the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly discouraged, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g. ongoing vandalism or serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard.

අනතුරු ඇඟවීම සහ කියාදීම

Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why when we welcome newcomers, we are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We also ask that newcomers make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings which state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than administrators only.

However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. Administrators should generally ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.

වාරණය ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම

Technical instructions on how to block and unblock, and information on the blocking interface, is available at m:Help:Block and unblock. The following is advice specifically related to blocking and unblocking on Wikipedia.

IP ලිපින වාරණය

මූලික පිටුවන්: Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses සහ Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses

In addition to the advice below, there are special considerations to take into account when blocking IP addresses. IP address blocks can affect many users, and IPs can change. Users intending to block an IP address should at a minimum check for usage of that address, and consider duration carefully. IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely.

Collateral damage

When an IP range is blocked, other users who also use that range may be unintentionally affected. If you propose to block a significant IP range, especially for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral damage on that range—that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block. They may be able to be given IP block exemption so they will not be affected.

See the above links for more.

Duration of blocks

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider:

• the severity of the behavior;
• whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.

Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address.

While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards:

• incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
• accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;
• protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely.

Indefinite blocks

An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. Like all remedies, this is not a punishment. It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future.

Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, which would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community.

Setting block options

There are several options available to modify the effect of blocks, which should be used in certain circumstances.

• autoblock will prevent contributors from contributing on the IP address that the blocked user was using, and should typically be disabled when blocking unapproved or malfunctioning bots (so as not to block the bot's operator, or other bots using that IP), though it should be enabled when blocking malicious bots. (This feature is enabled by default.)
• prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the account; if autoblock is enabled, it will also prevent accounts from being created on the IP address that the blocked user was using. It should typically be disabled when blocking accounts with inappropriate names (to allow the user to create an account with an appropriate name), though it should be enabled when blocking bad-faith names (for example, clear attacks on other users) or vandalism-only accounts.
• block e-mail will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature (still, in instances when an admin feels email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the unblock-en-l mailing list) through which he can discuss the block.
• Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked if unchecked will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page.

The most common types of blocks when blocking an IP are commonly known as a soft block (autoblock disabled, account creation not disabled, blocking only anonymous users enabled) which block unregistered users but allow editing by registered users when logged in (commonly used when blocking shared IP addresses); soft block with account creation disabled (same but account creation disabled) used in most cases where vandalism or disruption is occurring via registered accounts; and hard block, which disables all editing whether logged in or not, other than administrators and other IP-block exempt users – used when the level of vandalism or disruption via creation of "throwaway" accounts is such that editing from the IP is to be prevented other than after individual checking of requests. Open proxies are hard blocked upon detection.

ආශ්‍රිත ලිපි

• Difference between bans and blocks
• User block templates
• MediaWiki:Blockedtext – the message shown to blocked users when they attempt to edit
• Wikipedia:Appealing a block – information about contesting a block
• Wikipedia:Autoblock
• Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses and sensitive IP addresses – information relating to blocking IP addresses
• Wikipedia:Global blocking – information about global blocks
• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
• Wikipedia:WikiWar
• User:ThisIsaTest, created for blocking practice